MTI Dialogue Session (all posts)

Question: That our GDP had been rising by a phenomenal 7.7% per year since 1960 was mentioned but how much of this was real was questioned, especially with GST, inflation, transport costs rising and stagnant wages.

Answer: 'We don't cook the numbers. One of the attributes - trust, disappears immediately'. The difference between real and nominal GDP was explained.

It was admitted that this was a difficult question. Those of us in the room would have no problem due to our degree which would grant us flexibility in the labour market since we would have the skill sets to switch jobs and we could pursue anything.

The problem was with the bottom 20-30% of Singapore, who hadn't even completed secondary school. They were in their late 40s and early 50s and had a lack of training, rendering them vulnerable to competition from low cost labour from India and China.

The cost of living in Singapore was rising by only 1-2% annually thanks to currency appreciation and this was reasonable by global standards, especially since we're totally urbanised (in urban areas the cost of living rises more quickly than in rural ones, so we actually do very well compared to other countries).

The question was whether there was a trickle down effect. Retraining was encouraged but the reality was that it was hard to adjust, and he'd met many such affected people during Meet the People sessions.

Question: How can we contribute back to Singapore? I went to the US for the NUS Overseas Colleges (NOC) program and worked and got exposure there. If I leave Singapore how can I contribute? If I stay here I will lose out.

Answer: Even in teaching there was a chance to go global. He'd gone to Cambodia and there were Singaporean teachers there teaching under a private company.

It was up to us to work overseas but we were urged to take this opportunity. Even Singaporean companies, if able, would send us overseas to gain global exposure, let alone MNCs.

We were told to take the offers because it wasn't unpatriotic to do so but "please come back" to contribute with what we'd learnt. The temptation to leave would be great but there'd always be a part of Singapore inside us and we'd feel pangs after a while: 'I don't want to reduce it to char kway teow... It's more than that'. For example some emigres return to Singapore after a few years abroad.

The example of Vietnam was raised. They have 80 million people or so, yet 3 million in the diaspora: 0.5 million in the US [Ed: Wo-hen!], 0.5 million in France etc. The constraint that Vietnam faced was of not having enough good people, thanks to their bieng under communism for too long, and in its time of need, Vietnamese overseas returned to it.

Venture capital in Singapore was good - $20 billion worth.

Question: Singapore lacks talents. Not just money but people. In the US you can rub shoulders with Jeff Bezos, but you can't do that here. It makes more sense to go to the US since it's hard to found startups in Singapore.

Answer: The US was huge and it had a grand tradition of entrepreneurship. If you ask VCs who the important investors are, it's those with experience who can guide startups. Rockstars of industries lack the bandwith - they don't have the time to help everyone unless they take a personal interest in you.

Singapore might've been a bad place for startups 10-15 years ago, but now we have home grown people - Olivia Lum, Sim Wong Hoo (and one more whose name I forgot). People come here from China and India to help, and we have Singaporeans with experience.

Finally, compared to the US, all countries are far behind in this respect.

Question: People in Singapore are too risk averse.

Answer: This is a reason why the early entrepreneurs were from polytechniques [Ed: Pardon my French] - university graduates were too comfortable. The more education you have the more risk averse you have - those with PhDs are totally risk averse. But this is changing.

Question: Are we changing fast enough to compete on a worldwide field?

Answer: We can't beat China and India, but many are prepared to come to Singapore.

Question: What is the future of the humanities in Singapore? We study what we're interested in but we can't find corresponding jobs.

Answer: He did economics as his first degree and public administration later. Since he was bonded, he didn't get to choose his first job, which was as Deputy Director of Police and Security in MHA. His world was shattered. The moral of the story is that it's not to do with your training but your state of mind.

Those from the humanities have a different (qualitative) way of looking at things. Those in the social sciences occupy the middle ground between humanities and hard sciences. If you're a good Humanities student you can get a good management post anywhere. Many companies want balance and an environment for good decision making.

For hard political analysis, the marke tis not big, being mostly in academia and institutes. Business political analysis is a bigger market and Singapore is the best place in the region for this, together with Hong Kong.

There are opportunities, but they are not as obvious. You need to differentiate yourself and not shut the door.